Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game

[pemerton]

I think if you are familiar with the setting, the organization, you can handle this stuff by deciding. But if you can't see the difference between 'the group can only be found on this one spot on the map', and the 'group can potentially be found anywhere on the map, with some places being more likely than others'

These things seem to be in contrradiction: if the GM is going to decide where the group can or can't be found, then it's not true that the group can potentially be found anywhere on the map - unless you mean that the potential is there until the GM decides otherwise; but from the player point of view that's not a very significant form of potential.

 

[pemerton]

Players don't declare actions, they declare intent. The GM decides if that intent translates into a corresponding action and what the outcome of that action is.

Says who?

Here is the quotation from Gygax's PHB (p 22) and DMG (p ), which makes it clear that the player of a paladin of 4th level or up can declare the action of praying for a warhorse:

At 4th level - or at any time thereafter - the paladin may call for his warhorse . . . it will magically appear . . .

When the paladin reaches 4th or higher level, he or she will eventually call for a warhorse (as detailed in the PLAYERS HANDBOOK). It will magically appear, but not in actual physical form. The paladin will magically “see” his or her faithful destrier in whatever locale it is currently in . . .​

The fact that the fictional situation has to be appropriate - you mention a loud noise, and I think most tables would accept that you can't pray for your warhorse in the middle of battle, though I can imagine a group thinking differently - doesn't mean that the player can't declare the action. If my PC is not carrying a sword or other bladed weapon then I probably can't declare the action "I draw my blade and cut him in two!" - but that doesn't show that everything is gated behind the GM's permission, only that permissible action declarations depend upon the fictional position of the PC. Which is a largely uncontroversial point.

Due to the very nature of the RPGs, the GM has broad discretion with regard to what's happening.

This claim is too general to be very useful in describing different approaches to RPGing, and is certainly unhelpful in response to the OP's specific question about technique.

Just sticking to the example of AD&D combat rules, because they are pretty familiar to most posters, there are all sorts of things which happen but are not subject to the GM's broad discretion: parameters for movement (set by a combination of movement rates and rules for being engaged in melee); who hits whome (determined by to-hit numbers and dice rolls); hit point totals (determined by pre-established starting states plus deductions that result from application of the to hit and damage rules and (less frequently) increases that result from application of the healing rules); etc.

In Classic Traveller (a game from 1977, so a fairly early RPG), the standard way to determine the response of a NPC to some request or approach by a PC is to roll on a reaction table. There are rules for modifying that roll. There are also discrete subsystems that apply to interactions with officials (mediated through the rules for Bribery and Admin skill). But there is no general assumption that the GM has broad discretion to decide all NPC responses to PC requests and approaches.

And to return to the example of "I draw my blade and cut him down!", in many RPGs the key fictional positioning requirement for that action declaration - namely, that the PC be carrying a blade - is under the player's control, not the GM's, because in many RPGs it is the player who chooses his/her PC's equipment (within system-determined parameters).

Obviously the examples of RPGs circumstances in which the GM does not have 'broad discretion with regard to what's happening" could be multiplied extensively.

Under normal circumstances, I expect a GM simply to determine what's going to happen based on his understanding of the game world.

That's an important fact about you and your RPGing preferences. It helps you work out which systems you might or might not enjoy, and who would be a good or bad GM for you. But again, it doesn't express any sort of general truth about GMing and RPGing techniques.

the GM sometimes needs to (subtly) steer the flow of the game. If the players are endlessly stuck in an investigation, then it might be alright to help them out. In such a case, a GM in the above situation might make a covert d100 roll, disregard the results, and declare a member of super-secret organization present any way - to advance the plot.

Again, this is one way of RPGing but not the only one, and I would suggest didn't become widespread until the mid-80s (and seems to have dominated since then).

But of course there are other approaches that are well known and are supported by a variety of systems. For instance, in a system in which the players can declare an action to search for sect members at various tea houses (Traveller is such a system, using the Steeetwise skill) all the GM has to do is adjudicate those atttempts, by setting difficulties and then - if the check fails - establishing what, if anything, happens as a consequence of failure. (Obviously if the check succeeds, the PCs find what they want.) There is no need to "steer" things, subtly or otherwise.

The idea that the GM should deceive the players about what action resolution system is being used - eg in your example, the GM pretends that the resolution is probabilistic but in fact the GM is just deciding - is quite controversial among RPGers, at least in my experience. For my part, if I am going to "say 'yes'" rather than call for a roll of the dice (most often that would be because there is nothing dramatic at stake in the outcome, and hence no obvious dramatic consequence of failure) I don't pretend otherwise. I just tell the players that their PCs get what they want, and then play continues on. An example is likely to come up in my next session of Traveller: one of the PCs needs medical treatment for an otherwise fatal disease (currently the PC is in cryogenic storage), and when the players say that they look for a hospital to take him to, I will say "yes" straight away and try to move as quicly as the table dynamic permits to events that occur once he has recoevered.

Or simply put: if you're too obvious and too transparent in manipulating game world objects and events towards a given story purpose, it might come across as too convenient to your players. You can do that but a light hand would be well advised, if possible.

Is this based on your own experience? Or are you just conjecturing?

In my experience, if the players say (for instance) "OK, now that we're back in town we buy such-and-such gear" and I reply "OK, no worries, write it down and mark of the right amount of money" that does not cause any problems. My experience similarly leads me to believe that my proposed treatment of the "We take him to hospital" action declaration that I describe above will not cause any issues at my table.

to advance the plot.

<snip>

to ensure the game remains on-track

Many RPGers do not play games in which there is such a thing as "the plot" or "remaining on track". In talking about the GM's role in such terms you are already focusing on a very particular (if quite popular) approach to RPGing - roughly speaking, an approach in which the GM narrates the players through a pre-authored story using a mixture of mechanical action resolution, overt GM decision-making, and covert GM decision-making of the sort you described in my preceding quote from your post.

 

[Lanefan]

I appreciate your opinion here, but truthfully, never ONCE since I began implementing a more player-centric, scene-framing approach to GM-ing has a player EVER at my table said, "Wow, that's really contrived there, Innerdude."

And I'll admit, it was genuinely a worry of mine that players would start questioning things. "Oh, really, there's another merchant in this town just like the last one?" Or, "How did that bad guy get here so fast?"

I'd probably be that player; and though out of courtesy I'd likely not mention it (unless it was really crazy-blatant) I'd still notice it, and it'd still bug me.

And now having 7 or 8 years of experience under my belt, I can tell you that this supposed "problem" is largely non-existent when handled well. And the flip side of it is, my players have been generally highly engaged in the action at the table over that time. Rather than questioning the legitimacy of continuity, what scene framing has done instead is reward the players for looking into a scene and figuring out the connections from a prior situation. "Oh, so THAT'S why that crew of thugs was after us! Oh, so THAT'S why the merchant at the docks didn't want us to go looking for the stolen goods!" In my experience it creates a highly virtuous player feedback loop.

So the players are in effect building in the continuity themselves? Or are you introducing connecting elements for them to maybe latch on to? Or... ?

Can a poor GM mess this up? Of course. But when done properly, "scene framing" GM style has never once led my players to start questioning the legitimacy of the causal relationships within the gameworld.

I wonder...maybe it depends on how much you skip over in between scenes. If the scenes are close enough together in plot or time or whatever that the connection between one and the next is fairly clear then it'll be less of an issue than if the scenes are less connected or even (at first glance) completely disconnected.

It's odd too, because I hear it preached so often from more traditional GMs that "scene framing" will just be the death of everything they hold dear about their game. "Oh my gosh, it's just going to totally ruin the continuity of the game world, and nothing will make sense, and it will feel like lazy storytelling, and mass chaos and hysteria will ensue!"

For me, switching to "scene framing" style has led to vastly superior RPG experiences---either with me as GM or anyone else---than insisting on "game world continuity because GM reasons".

I do have a few questions, then. I've asked these of pemerton in the past and am curious as to whether your responses would differ.

1. What effect has scene-framing had on exploration play - the amount of it, and the focus - in your game? Do the players still see self-directed or sandbox-style setting exploration and information gathering as important, or relevant, or even necessary?

2. Do your players ever consider the "gap" between scenes as important enough to stop the next scene and back things up a bit? For example: scene A is in an uptown tavern, where the PCs (for whatever reason) sign themselves on for a sea journey. You then set the next scene as starting when they board the ship. There's a gap there - on you starting that next scene would a player ever say (or even be allowed to say) "Hey, hold on: on our way to the ship I wanted to try and slip away in the darkness for a few minutes and let my temple know where I'm going, as an insurance policy" and thus back you up? Or are the gaps just ignored?

 

[Alexander Kalinowski]

Says who?

The fact that the GM has the power to rule that an action is unsuccessful or even cannot be successfully completed. And possibly not even attempted. If a PC is under a love spell, a player might declare that his PC is going to attack the object of his love. The GM can deny that and tell the player to choose a different course of action under these circumstances. Not the usual circumstances of gameplay but just one demonstration that declaring "my character will do this" by no means guarantees that the character will de facto attempt to do that.

The fact that the fictional situation has to be appropriate - you mention a loud noise, and I think most tables would accept that you can't pray for your warhorse in the middle of battle, though I can imagine a group thinking differently - doesn't mean that the player can't declare the action.

A player is of course at liberty to declare that his PC is going to jump to the moon, if he wants to. But if the GM denies it, his action declaration does not amount to more than a declaration of intent.

If my PC is not carrying a sword or other bladed weapon then I probably can't declare the action "I draw my blade and cut him in two!" - but that doesn't show that everything is gated behind the GM's permission,

If the GM rules that your PC cannot perform the action that you just declared, what are you going to do about it except go and find a new GM?

This claim is too general to be very useful in describing different approaches to RPGing, and is certainly unhelpful in response to the OP's specific question about technique.

Well, statements like these of course do not pretend to hold true for all RPGs. "Due to the very nature of the RPGs" is short-hand for "Due to the very nature of MAINSTREAM RPGs". You know, the standard model of role-playing - D&D, Shadowrun, GURPS, Warhammer, Traveller, Palladium, etc.?

Just sticking to the example of AD&D combat rules, because they are pretty familiar to most posters, there are all sorts of things which happen but are not subject to the GM's broad discretion: parameters for movement (set by a combination of movement rates and rules for being engaged in melee); who hits whome (determined by to-hit numbers and dice rolls); hit point totals (determined by pre-established starting states plus deductions that result from application of the to hit and damage rules and (less frequently) increases that result from application of the healing rules); etc.

"Hey, guys, just giving you a heads-up but in my AD&D campaign, we're playing with movement rates doubled, I think that makes more sense."

In Classic Traveller (a game from 1977, so a fairly early RPG), the standard way to determine the response of a NPC to some request or approach by a PC is to roll on a reaction table. There are rules for modifying that roll. There are also discrete subsystems that apply to interactions with officials (mediated through the rules for Bribery and Admin skill). But there is no general assumption that the GM has broad discretion to decide all NPC responses to PC requests and approaches.

"Hey, GM, aren't you supposed to roll on the reaction table?"
"Nah, I'm good, I know what that PC is thinking and feeling in this scene already."
Again, what are you going to do about it except walk out?
Also, I hope you're not under the impression that people who buy core rulebooks out there check each corebook if the specific system gives the GM explicit license to invoke a Rule 0-equivalent. It's the default assumption.

because in many RPGs it is the player who chooses his/her PC's equipment (within system-determined parameters).

...and dependent on the GM's approval, even if only tacitly so. If you're playing in my next D&D campaign a bunch of Level 1 characters who just escaped slavery, you might have no starting equipment except the shirts on your backs. And possibly have your current HP levels halved.

Obviously the examples of RPGs circumstances in which the GM does not have 'broad discretion with regard to what's happening" could be multiplied extensively.

The only true check on GM power is the players' unwillingness to put up with his nonsense any longer.

That's an important fact about you and your RPGing preferences. It helps you work out which systems you might or might not enjoy, and who would be a good or bad GM for you. But again, it doesn't express any sort of general truth about GMing and RPGing techniques.

Well, it's the default assumption. Just look at Matt Mercer and Critical Role. That is mainstream GMing. Other philosophies exist but they're more niche.

Again, this is one way of RPGing but not the only one, and I would suggest didn't become widespread until the mid-80s (and seems to have dominated since then).

(Emphasis added.)
Quod erat demonstrandum.

My experience similarly leads me to believe that my proposed treatment of the "We take him to hospital" action declaration that I describe above will not cause any issues at my table.

I am presuming that your PCs are not in a region in which hospitals are (fiction-wise) a rarity? Because how heavy-handed your just saying "Yes" is depends entirely on the likelihood of finding one under these circumstances. If they're on a planet lacking any sentient life, it's quite heavy-handed. If they're in the Imperial capital, it's not heavy-handed at all.

Many RPGers do not play games in which there is such a thing as "the plot" or "remaining on track". In talking about the GM's role in such terms you are already focusing on a very particular (if quite popular) approach to RPGing

Yes, because it gets really tiresome to explicitly refer to mainstream RPGs every time. It's instead presumed that readers can deduce what was meant and don't feel the need to point out that there are different models away from the mainstream - because it's a given.

 

[Bedrockgames]

These things seem to be in contrradiction: if the GM is going to decide where the group can or can't be found, then it's not true that the group can potentially be found anywhere on the map - unless you mean that the potential is there until the GM decides otherwise; but from the player point of view that's not a very significant form of potential.

It means the GM would be giving full consideration to the possibility at different locations as they come up (using his knowledge of the setting, logic, etc). Those people are potentially anywhere in the region, like how a member of my family could potentially be anywhere in Lynn Massachusetts today (only much, much more simple). Perhaps from your point of view this is not significant. To me this is a significant form of potential. Especially if the GM is honestly making best effort to reach a determination and not simply determining based on what he or she thinks is cool, fits for adventure or pleases me the player. It creates a sense of a real place for me, where the people and organizations are moving around and doing things. If it doesn't work for you, I really don't care.

 

[pemerton]

The fact that the GM has the power to rule that an action is unsuccessful or even cannot be successfully completed.

The same point I made upthread applies: this is not in general true of RPGing. Eg you won't find anything in Classic Traveller that states or implies that a GM has this power. Nor in Moldvay Basic. Just to pick two examples.

Well, statements like these of course do not pretend to hold true for all RPGs. "Due to the very nature of the RPGs" is short-hand for "Due to the very nature of MAINSTREAM RPGs". You know, the standard model of role-playing - D&D, Shadowrun, GURPS, Warhammer, Traveller, Palladium, etc.?

<snip>

Yes, because it gets really tiresome to explicitly refer to mainstream RPGs every time. It's instead presumed that readers can deduce what was meant and don't feel the need to point out that there are different models away from the mainstream - because it's a given.

I don't think you have a very good handle on the advice to Classic Traveller referees in Books 1 to 3, nor on the advice to B/X and 4e GMs in the core books for those editions of D&D - just to pick up on two of the RPGs you identify as "mainstream". None of those systems suggests that the GM is the only participant with any control over the fiction, nor that every outcome is to be determined by the GM deciding what happens.

I hope you're not under the impression that people who buy core rulebooks out there check each corebook if the specific system gives the GM explicit license to invoke a Rule 0-equivalent. It's the default assumption.

For you, perhaps. No one whom I play with assumes it. I've been GMing since around 1984, having started with Moldvay Basic and Classic Traveller, and have never assumed that the published mechanics are irrelevant and that the GM is at liberty to declare whatever outcomes s/he desires.

If a PC is under a love spell, a player might declare that his PC is going to attack the object of his love. The GM can deny that and tell the player to choose a different course of action under these circumstances.

That goes to fictional positioning. The GM isn't just at liberty to declare that some player's PC is under a love spell. And it also applies vice versa: if my PC places a charm spell on a NPC, the GM is not at liberty to have that NPC attack my PC. The operation of these sorts of effects in the game is illustrative of the function of rules in establishing parameters for participants' control over the fiction.

(A contrast might be drawn with (say) Prince Valiant, which includes magic within its fiction but has no rules for magic. As a Prince Valiant GM it would be outrageous to just impose a love spell on a PC without that being the outcome of some unfolding fictional circumstance in which the player would have participated via the play of his/her PC.)

A player is of course at liberty to declare that his PC is going to jump to the moon

In most RPGs that I play that's actually not a valid action declaration, because it doesn't satisfy the constraints imposed by the PC's fictional positioning. The only exception would be Marvel Heroic RP, and even there only a few characters would be subject to the exception.

If the GM rules that your PC cannot perform the action that you just declared, what are you going to do about it except go and find a new GM?

<snip>

"Hey, GM, aren't you supposed to roll on the reaction table?"
"Nah, I'm good, I know what that PC is thinking and feeling in this scene already."
Again, what are you going to do about it except walk out?

<snip>

The only true check on GM power is the players' unwillingness to put up with his nonsense any longer.

What is a GM going to do if a player insists "I draw my sword" even though the GM has specified that there are no swords in his/her gameworld? Or if a player insists that an NPC is his/her long-lost lover who is going to bestow upon the PC all his/her wealth as recompense for abandoning the PC in the past, and then proceeds to write down as much on his/her PC sheet? I don't know why you think that abusive or cheating behaviour is confined only to GMs!

For my part, I'm not discussing pathologocial or degenerate instances of play where one participant insists on establishing the content of the shared fiction in ways that violate the rules and rely on sheer social pressure. I'm talking about approaches to play that actually fall within the rules of the game.

 

[pemerton]

My experience similarly leads me to believe that my proposed treatment of the "We take him to hospital" action declaration that I describe above will not cause any issues at my table.

I am presuming that your PCs are not in a region in which hospitals are (fiction-wise) a rarity? Because how heavy-handed your just saying "Yes" is depends entirely on the likelihood of finding one under these circumstances. If they're on a planet lacking any sentient life, it's quite heavy-handed. If they're in the Imperial capital, it's not heavy-handed at all.

Thanks for the pro-tip.

What makes you think that my players would declare "We take Roland to a hospital" if they were on a planet lacking any sentient life? Or indeed were somewhere where they couldn't readily ascertain the presence of hospitals?

 

[Manbearcat]

Now, the tricky part is (and this is where I think MMI comes in) that the GM sometimes needs to (subtly) steer the flow of the game. If the players are endlessly stuck in an investigation, then it might be alright to help them out. In such a case, a GM in the above situation might make a covert d100 roll, disregard the results, and declare a member of super-secret organization present any way - to advance the plot..

So Illusionism then?

A couple thoughts.

1) I’ve brought up GM covert application of Force (to dictate GM preferred outcomes, to ensure GM plot and GM preferred play trajectory) many times on these boards. I’ve been told many times that the deployment of Illusionism isn’t a go-to in certain forms of GMing (in particular, the AD&D 2e style that emerged around Dragonlance and matured with White Wolf). Yet, I constantly see it being espoused as fundamental either knowingly or unknowingly (eg; we get a play excerpt or example that has it on full display).

2) I think you’ll find it more controversial than you may be aware of.

3) I’m beginning to understand your difficulty internalizing PbtA games. Illusionism, “steering”, and GM preconceived plot are quite literally anathema to the ruleset, it’s play agenda, and it’s GMing principles. Those game systems are literally an answer to the question “how do we get an exciting, premise-focused, freeform TTRPGing experience where all participants at the table can play to find our what happens?”

If you’re working off the conception that such a goal isn’t possible (I’m not sure you are, but I expect you may be), it’s going to be all but impossible to get your head around the games’ machinery. Or until you play it with folks who don’t share your predisposition.

 

[Bedrockgames]

3) I’m beginning to understand your difficulty internalizing PbtA games. Illusionism, “steering”, and GM preconceived plot are quite literally anathema to the ruleset, it’s play agenda, and it’s GMing principles. Those game systems are literally an answer to the question “how do we get an exciting, premise-focused, freeform TTRPGing experience where all participants at the table can play to find our what happens?”

If you’re working off the conception that such a goal isn’t possible (I’m not sure you are, but I expect you may be), it’s going to be all but impossible to get your head around the games’ machinery. Or until you play it with folks who don’t share your predisposition.

I think this is really just a difference of degree though. What PbtA sounds like to me is an approach highly focused on this question. The style we are espousing isn't nearly so focused (and doesn't particularly desire to be). If I understand PbtA based on what you are saying (and I may well not, because I haven't played it and I hear different things about it---which I assume could just be people describing the same thing differently, or people describing different incarnations of the system), it almost casts the GM the being surprised is baked into the system. That is fine if it is the case, but the GMs engaged in the style we are talking about also want to be surprised. If they didn't they'd just run something more like an adventure path or even a railroaded adventure structured around set pieces. The whole point of the sandbox is you don't know where the players will go, you don't know how they will react to situations. It is like chemistry. You put different things into play and the characters interact with them, and you react to that. It is a very exciting process in my opinion. I would definitely encourage anyone who wants some insight into this style to check out some of the blog entries of Clash Bowley on Situational GMing. I incorporate a lot of that approach into my sandbox play (I think this is the initial post on it, but he elaborates more in later entries: http://iflybynight.blogspot.com/2009/09/situational-gming.html). It is also not simply a matter of the GM deciding everything that occurs at the table. Many of us have mentioned we frequently use random tools like encounter tables, various procedures for determining unknowns etc (we just are not obligated to if we think we've got it figured out already). For example I use things like Dilemma Tables (which I roll on when things are coming to a head, and where something arises that demands immediate attention and the players and they now need to choose between two very important things, both of which usually have consequences for not being tended to). I also make heavy use of a simplified resolution system to handle 'off camera' tasks. So if players hire two thieves and send them to steal the Bone Breaking Stick, I eyeball the skill level of the thieves and assign them a dice pool, then roll against a dice pool I assign to Bone Breaking Sect's level of security (say 2d10 against 6d10 or something) to figure out if they succeed. I am not obligated to do it. But I often like doing these things and I find it helpful. I think a key difference from what I do, and what someone like Pemerton might want, is I am pretty free to make a ruling on the fly as to how this will be resolved (or if it will even be resolved mechanically). That frees me up to try and invent a lot of different approaches until I find one that fits. I like this because that is how I ended up with this dice pool method, and I am always free to discard it when it stops being useful. But the overall point here is, I genuinely like being surprised too. I just don't feel like I need it to be a central focus of the game.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not sure which "mainstream RPGs" you have in mind but Classic Traveller is not that obscure and has a very wide variety of subsystems that set DCs for various action declarations. In my current campaign we've resolved: dealing with bureaucracy and with police: assaulting a base on foot; assaulting a base from vehicles; starship combat; small group combat; starship infiltration; EVAs; tracking down a satellite in orbit; curing disease; searching for the Psionics Institute; evading orbital fire in ATVs; hacking computers; engaging in interstellar travel and interstellar trade; seducing an agent to obtain information; and seeking something out on the surface of an alien world. Maybe other stuff as well I'm not recalling at present. The only one which didn't have a workable mechanic for resolving the action, either expressly provided or easily extrapolated from what has been provided, was the last one. Which is a pity, because exploring alien worlds is an important aspect of sci-fi play.

I've already mentioned how BW and 4e handle the issue of establishing odds of success. In the case of MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, every check is an opposed one, and the system has elaborate rules for establishing and maintaining the Doom Pool which is the default source of opposition if nothing else applies.

Prince Valiant plays somewhat between Traveller and Cortex+ Heroic in this respect - many checks are opposed; where they are not, the system for setting DCs compared to the system for determining the size of player dice pools tends to mean that initial chances are rarely less than 1 in 4 (ie 2 successes on 2 dice), although the complex resolution system can exhibit a death-spiral effect, which is a reason to use it with caution.

Perhaps all the systems I play count as "specific/niche game engines"?

I would say the ones you are listing here are, at this point and time pretty niche. We have some information on what is currently being most played on FG VTT and I don't think Traveller (I'm curious what is the subsystem for setting DC's and how does it eliminate GM determination of difficulty and NPC reactions??), BW or Prince Valiant are even in the top 80% of games being played. 4e on the other hand specifically let's the DM set DC's so not sure why it's being cited as a game system that minimizes/eliminates this, but even it has fallen pretty far on the being played scale.

Here... http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...n-FG-In-2018-D-amp-D-Pathfinder-Savage-Worlds

Would you claim these are naything but niche games??